From
The American Left History Blog Archives
(2007) - On American Political Discourse
Markin comment:
In 2007-2008 I, in vain,
attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American
presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed
election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the
event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious,
in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really
believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama
presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world
politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially
the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois
commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things
to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies,
the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for
a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some
of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on.
************
IN THE TIME OF THE
VIETNAMESE NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLE
BOOK REVIEW
APRIL 30TH
MARKS THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE MILITARY VICTORY OF THE NORTH VIETNAMESE ARMY/
SOUTH VIETNAMESE NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY HAT
As the current Bush
Administration-directed quagmire continues in Iraq it is rather timely to look
at a previously bout of American imperialist madness in Vietnam if only in
order to demonstrate the similar mindsets, then and now, of the American
political establishment and their hangers-on. This book, unintentionally I am
sure, is a prima facie argument, against those who see Iraq (or saw Vietnam) as
merely an erroneous policy of the American government that can be ‘fixed’ by a
change to a more rational imperialist policy guided by a different elite. Undeniably there are many differences between
the current war and the struggle in Vietnam. Not the least of which is that in
Vietnam there was a Communist-led insurgency that leftists throughout the world
could identify with and were duty-bound to support. No such situation ensues in
Iraq today where, seemingly, from the little we know about the murky politics
of the of the parties militants can support individual anti-imperialist actions
as they occur but stand away, way away from the religious sectarian struggle
for different versions of a fundamentalist Islamic state that the various
parties are apparently fighting for.
Stanley Karnow’s well-informed
study of the long history of struggle in Vietnam against outsiders, near and
far, is a more than adequate primer about the history and the political issues,
from the American side at least, as they came to a head in Vietnam in the early
1960’s. This work was produced in conjunction with a Public Broadcasting System
documentary in 1983 so that if one wants to take the time to get a better grasp
of the situation as it unfolded the combination of the literary and visual
presentations will make one an ‘armchair expert’ on the subject. A glossary of
by now unfamiliar names of secondary players and chronology of events is
helpful as are some very good photographs that lead into each chapter
This book is the work of a
long time journalist who covered Southeast Asia from the 1950’s until at least
the early 1980’s when he went back after the war was over and interviewed
various survivors from both sides as well as key political players. Although
over twenty years has passed since the book’s publication it appears to me that
he has covered all the essential elements of the dispute as well as the wrangling,
again mainly on the American side , of
policy makers big and small. While everyone should look at more recent material
that material appears to me to be essentially more specialized analysis of the
general themes presented in Karnow’s book. Or are the inevitably self-serving
memoirs by those, like former Secretary of War Robert McNamara, looking to
refurbish they images for the historical record. Karnow’s book has the added virtue
of having been written just long enough after the end of the war that memories,
faulty as they are in any case, were still fresh but with enough time in
between for some introspection.
The first part of Karnow’s
book deals with the long history of the Vietnamese as a people either in their
various provincial enclaves or as a national entity to be independent of the
many other powers in the region, particularly China, who wanted to subjugate
them. The book as pays detailed attention to the fight among the European
colonial powers for dominance in the region culminating in the decisive victory
for control by France in the 1800s. That domination by a Western imperialist
power, ultimately defeated by the same Communist and nationalist forces that
were to defeat the Americans and their South Vietnamese allies, sets the stage
for the huge role that the United States would come to play from the French
defeat in 1954 until their own defeat a couple of decades later. This section
is important to read because the premises of the French about their adversary
became, in almost cookie-cutter fashion, the same premises that drove American
policy. And to similar ends.
The bulk of the book and the central
story line, however, is a study of the hubris of American imperialist
policy-makers in attempting to define their powers, prerogatives and interests
in the post-World War II period. The sub-title of the book, which the current
inhabitants of the Bush Administration obviously have not read and in any case
would willfully misunderstand, is how not to subordinate primary interests to
momentary secondary interests in the scramble to preserve the Empire.
Apparently, commonsense and simple rationality are in short supply when one
goes inside the Washington Beltway. Taking into account the differences in
personality among the three main villains of the piece- Kennedy, Johnson and
Nixon- the similarities of response and need to defend some sense of honor,
American honor, are amazingly similar, individual rhetoric aside. There thus
can be little wonder the North
Vietnamese went about their business of revolution and independence pretty much
according to their plans and with little regard to ‘subtleties’ in American
diplomacy. But, read the book and judge for yourselves. Do not be surprised if something
feels awfully, awfully familiar.